If AI is to meet basic business-use, legal and ethical needs, it must be explainable. But current approaches to explainable AI are falling short. We set out how and why Causal AI generates a superior kind of explainability.

In attempts to "explain" predictions of machine learning models, researchers have proposed hundreds of techniques for attributing predictions to features that are deemed important. While these attributions are often claimed to hold the potential to improve human "understanding" of the models, surprisingly little work explicitly evaluates progress towards this aspiration. In this paper, we conduct a crowdsourcing study, where participants interact with deception detection models that have been trained to distinguish between genuine and fake hotel reviews. They are challenged both to simulate the model on fresh reviews, and to edit reviews with the goal of lowering the probability of the originally predicted class. Successful manipulations would lead to an adversarial example. During the training (but not the test) phase, input spans are highlighted to communicate salience. Through our evaluation, we observe that for a linear bag-of-words model, participants with access to the feature coefficients during training are able to cause a larger reduction in model confidence in the testing phase when compared to the no-explanation control. For the BERT-based classifier, popular local explanations do not improve their ability to reduce the model confidence over the no-explanation case. Remarkably, when the explanation for the BERT model is given by the (global) attributions of a linear model trained to imitate the BERT model, people can effectively manipulate the model.

Designing and implementing explainable systems is seen as the next step towards increasing user trust in, acceptance of and reliance on Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems. While explaining choices made by black-box algorithms such as machine learning and deep learning has occupied most of the limelight, systems that attempt to explain decisions (even simple ones) in the context of social choice are steadily catching up. In this paper, we provide a comprehensive survey of explainability in mechanism design, a domain characterized by economically motivated agents and often having no single choice that maximizes all individual utility functions. We discuss the main properties and goals of explainability in mechanism design, distinguishing them from those of Explainable AI in general. This discussion is followed by a thorough review of the challenges one may face when working on Explainable Mechanism Design and propose a few solution concepts to those.

A growing body of research runs human subject evaluations to study whether providing users with explanations of machine learning models can help them with practical real-world use cases. However, running user studies is challenging and costly, and consequently each study typically only evaluates a limited number of different settings, e.g., studies often only evaluate a few arbitrarily selected explanation methods. To address these challenges and aid user study design, we introduce Use-Case-Grounded Simulated Evaluations (SimEvals). SimEvals involve training algorithmic agents that take as input the information content (such as model explanations) that would be presented to each participant in a human subject study, to predict answers to the use case of interest. The algorithmic agent's test set accuracy provides a measure of the predictiveness of the information content for the downstream use case. We run a comprehensive evaluation on three real-world use cases (forward simulation, model debugging, and counterfactual reasoning) to demonstrate that SimEvals can effectively identify which explanation methods will help humans for each use case. These results provide evidence that SimEvals can be used to efficiently screen an important set of user study design decisions, e.g.

Interpretability has become an essential topic for artificial intelligence in some high-risk domains such as healthcare, bank and security. For commonly-used tabular data, traditional methods trained end-to-end machine learning models with numerical and categorical data only, and did not leverage human understandable knowledge such as data descriptions. Yet mining human-level knowledge from tabular data and using it for prediction remain a challenge. Therefore, we propose a concept and argumentation based model (CAM) that includes the following two components: a novel concept mining method to obtain human understandable concepts and their relations from both descriptions of features and the underlying data, and a quantitative argumentation-based method to do knowledge representation and reasoning. As a result of it, CAM provides decisions that are based on human-level knowledge and the reasoning process is intrinsically interpretable. Finally, to visualize the purposed interpretable model, we provide a dialogical explanation that contain dominated reasoning path within CAM. Experimental results on both open source benchmark dataset and real-word business dataset show that (1) CAM is transparent and interpretable, and the knowledge inside the CAM is coherent with human understanding; (2) Our interpretable approach can reach competitive results comparing with other state-of-art models.

The Internet is the most complex machine humankind has ever built, and how to defense it from intrusions is even more complex. With the ever increasing of new intrusions, intrusion detection task rely on Artificial Intelligence more and more. Interpretability and transparency of the machine learning model is the foundation of trust in AI-driven intrusion detection results. Current interpretation Artificial Intelligence technologies in intrusion detection are heuristic, which is neither accurate nor sufficient. This paper proposed a rigorous interpretable Artificial Intelligence driven intrusion detection approach, based on artificial immune system. Details of rigorous interpretation calculation process for a decision tree model is presented. Prime implicant explanation for benign traffic flow are given in detail as rule for negative selection of the cyber immune system. Experiments are carried out in real-life traffic.

In this paper titled A Model-Agnostic SAT-based approach for Symbolic Explanation Enumeration we propose a generic agnostic approach allowing to generate different and complementary types of symbolic explanations. More precisely, we generate explanations to locally explain a single prediction by analyzing the relationship between the features and the output. Our approach uses a propositional encoding of the predictive model and a SAT-based setting to generate two types of symbolic explanations which are Sufficient Reasons and Counterfactuals. The experimental results on image classification task show the feasibility of the proposed approach and its effectiveness in providing Sufficient Reasons and Counterfactuals explanations.

State-of-the-art entity matching (EM) methods are hard to interpret, and there is significant value in bringing explainable AI to EM. Unfortunately, most popular explainability methods do not work well out of the box for EM and need adaptation. In this paper, we identify three challenges of applying local post hoc feature attribution methods to entity matching: cross-record interaction effects, non-match explanations, and variation in sensitivity. We propose our novel model-agnostic and schema-flexible method LEMON that addresses all three challenges by (i) producing dual explanations to avoid cross-record interaction effects, (ii) introducing the novel concept of attribution potential to explain how two records could have matched, and (iii) automatically choosing explanation granularity to match the sensitivity of the matcher and record pair in question. Experiments on public datasets demonstrate that the proposed method is more faithful to the matcher and does a better job of helping users understand the decision boundary of the matcher than previous work. Furthermore, user studies show that the rate at which human subjects can construct counterfactual examples after seeing an explanation from our proposed method increases from 54% to 64% for matches and from 15% to 49% for non-matches compared to explanations from a standard adaptation of LIME.

Our daily lives are being impacted by artificial intelligence (AI) in several ways. Artificial assistants, predictive models, and facial recognition systems are practically ubiquitous. Numerous sectors use AI, including education, healthcare, automobiles, manufacturing, and law enforcement. The judgments and forecasts provided by AI-enabled systems are becoming increasingly more significant and, in many instances, vital to survival. This is particularly true for AI systems used in healthcare, autonomous vehicles, and even military drones.

Explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) seeks to produce explanations for those machine learning methods which are deemed opaque. However, there is considerable disagreement about what this means and how to achieve it. Authors disagree on what should be explained (topic), to whom something should be explained (stakeholder), how something should be explained (instrument), and why something should be explained (goal). In this paper, I employ insights from means-end epistemology to structure the field. According to means-end epistemology, different means ought to be rationally adopted to achieve different epistemic ends. Applied to XAI, different topics, stakeholders, and goals thus require different instruments. I call this the means-end account of XAI. The means-end account has a descriptive and a normative component: on the one hand, I show how the specific means-end relations give rise to a taxonomy of existing contributions to the field of XAI; on the other hand, I argue that the suitability of XAI methods can be assessed by analyzing whether they are prescribed by a given topic, stakeholder, and goal.